5 ms·

I somewhat enjoy interviewing, and I thought about writing up my narrative of the best interview I ever had (it was very exceptional), and at the same time I th

I somewhat enjoy interviewing, and I thought about writing up my narrative of the best interview I ever had (it was very exceptional), and at the same time I thought about writing about the strangest interview I ever had, a distinction that belongs to Google. I decided not to because I didn't want to be unfair to them based on my experience which may well be out of the ordinary (I could recount it solely for this crowd if someone is interested). I didn't get far in that interview (I excused myself), but the entire process was downright Kafkaesque and I get the same eerie feeling reading this article. > Traditional leadership is, were you president of the chess club? Were you vice president of sales? How quickly did you get there? We don’t care. What we care about is, when faced with a problem and you’re a member of a team, do you, at the appropriate time, step in and lead. I'm sorry, what? This definition doesn't actually describe anything. It's more useful as an example of begging the question[1] than it is of describing what they mean by leadership. And how do they go about deciding if you step up to the plate at the right time in an interview, anyway? It seems like their "leadership" criteria wouldn't actually select for people with good leadership skills, it would just select for people with good storytelling. Par for the course for interviews, but let's not kid ourselves. [1] This phrase is commonly used to mean raising the question but I mean it here in the traditional sense, like the comical observation: "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

MetricMike 13y ago
The second half (or third third?) of that quote states: > And just as critically, do you step back and stop leading, do you let someone else? Because what’s critical to be an effective leader in this environment is you have to be willing to relinquish power. Which I think is what the author is trying to focus on. Traditional leadership would be making the decisions and taking risks because it's expected and people are asking you "Hey, what do we do?". Emergent leadership would then be making decisions and taking risks because it needs to happen or equally importantly acknowledging that someone else is more capable of doing so. I would bet that in the interview process they'd focus on the story and trying to determine how you make the decision to either ignore the chain of command or otherwise exert influence on it. Like you said, that definitely selects more for storytelling skills than leadership skills, but in absence of other more accurate metrics I think that's still better than looking for "President of Chess Club" on a resume. Unrelated, I'd love to read those narratives. While I can't speak for the community, I feel interviewing is a very hard thing to get right and knowing more about how other people do it AND experience it is important to getting better. Nothing < anecdotes < more anecdotes < data?
- simonsarris 13y ago
  Knowing when to lead and when to "let" someone else lead may be important (just as, say, delegating is), but I don't think it settles for a different definition of leadership. Knowing when to lead or not has always been considered a good criteria. > Nothing < anecdotes < more anecdotes < data? Well, I'm apprehensive about writing about an odd interview it because I don't want people to think ill of Google merely because I had what might be an uncommon interview process.
  - brandall10 13y ago
    How is that a different definition? It seems quite simply they're saying leadership is more about actions that titles. I for one happen to agree strongly with that attitude. The same could be said for any organization which trends toward a flat structure with little in the way of middle management (ie. Valve).
scotth 13y ago
I would love to hear the story.
- riggins 13y ago
  you had me at 'the strangest interview I ever had'
- simonsarris 13y ago
  Sorry! I dozed off. PLEASE remember that my anecdote may not be indicative of Google's typical recruiting and I am especially not passing judgement about anything they do (except maybe recruit). I like Google and it's probably a great place to work. Here's what happened: Back in 2011 a Google recruiter emailed me saying I might be a good fit for a position called: > 'Performance Engineer' for which we're looking for a candidate with a combination of compiler, high performance software design and computer architecture experience. Now I'm not certain how he came to the conclusion I might be a good fit, because I'm a simple JavaScript farmer from a backwards asteroid and the only thing remotely close to that job description in my short life were a few articles about JavaScript Canvas performance that I've written. I relayed that there must be some sort of misunderstanding about my skill-set. He says ah thanks, sorry for the confusion, have you got any friends? Standard recruiter stuff. We part ways. Fast forward to 2013 and I've just spent a year of my life slogging through writing a book on HTML5. It got published in July and I was busy resting on newly-built laurels when another Google recruiter contacts me, and I entertain. Now the timing is not particularly weird but this recruiter contacts me a week before a conference I was invited to. You see, one month before the recruiter email I got an invitation to a conference (EdgeConf), which happened to be invite only, even for the audience members, and which was to take place at Google HQ. This is puzzling if only because I'm still a relative nobody, save for perhaps the just-published book, and I couldn't fathom who might invite me to such a thing, but I figured it was someone in Google. The recruiter email a week before the event made this theory much more plausible, so I figured there may be some hint of who invited me awaiting at the conference. Alas, during the talks and the after-party nobody approached me or mentioned who invited me. I did meet the ever-recognizable Paul Irish for a second - we exchanged a handshake and I swooned (who wouldn't?), but no more. The puzzle remained. But how could it be an invite from anyone other than someone in Google? I don't know anyone. I'm from New Hampshire. I have very little in the way of programmer friends. That's a big part of why I love HN so much, it makes me feel like I'm part of a programmer community that I don't get to have offline. After the conference I talked to the recruiter on the phone, twice, where I relayed that no I was not interested in leaving New Hampshire, I like my slow life among the moose and other friends I have. Well that leaves Cambridge, he says, I'm not sure what we do there, he says, I'll get back to you. Cue dial tone. I guess that meant remote is out of the question, but that's not hard to imagine. On the second call, he talks to me about Cambridge and what they do there, but he was oddly uneasy talking about it, like he knew something I didn't (he certainly must). He made it sound like there was little (web?) developer presence there, and he wasn't totally certain what the projects were, but, and this is the part that really blew my mind, it shouldn't matter. He didn't literally say those words, but he heavily implied them by telling me that I would not know what kind of a spot I would be interviewing for. Not until after I'd been accepted, at any rate. There was no "You'll work on fixing Google Finance, which can't be hard since we haven't changed it in 6 years and it still uses Flash." There was almost no discussion of what products I might work on, and it was pointless to have, because I'd be interviewing to be a developer, and I'd be placed afterwards. So I could interview, but what I'd be doing was really up for grabs, and I wouldn't be doing the grabbing, and my options-that-were-apparently-not-mine-to-make were pigeonholed because of location. It sounded like teams only have people on-site, at least It was implied I couldn't work for a team based in Mountain View if my butt sat in Cambridge. So I asked if I could be sure of the position and team that I'd be working for before I interviewed properly, and he said no. At this point I had to cut things short. I don't understand the concept of interviewing not for a job but for a slot in a pool of talent to be assigned only after I am accepted. That sounds like an insurmountable amount of work to find out if a job is something I'd want to do or not. What if I don't like the app? Or the team? It seems like a very stressful way to begin at a company. So there you have it. That's everything I remember at the moment. To this day I never found out who invited me to that conference. I'm sure I'm remembering some of the details wrong. For instance, cell phones do not have dial tones to cue. But you get the idea.

MetricMike 13y ago

The second half (or third third?) of that quote states: > And just as critically, do you step back and stop leading, do you let someone else? Because what’s critical to be an effective leader in this environment is you have to be willing to relinquish power. Which I think is what the author is trying to focus on. Traditional leadership would be making the decisions and taking risks because it's expected and people are asking you "Hey, what do we do?". Emergent leadership would then be making decisions and taking risks because it needs to happen or equally importantly acknowledging that someone else is more capable of doing so. I would bet that in the interview process they'd focus on the story and trying to determine how you make the decision to either ignore the chain of command or otherwise exert influence on it. Like you said, that definitely selects more for storytelling skills than leadership skills, but in absence of other more accurate metrics I think that's still better than looking for "President of Chess Club" on a resume. Unrelated, I'd love to read those narratives. While I can't speak for the community, I feel interviewing is a very hard thing to get right and knowing more about how other people do it AND experience it is important to getting better. Nothing < anecdotes < more anecdotes < data?

simonsarris 13y ago
Knowing when to lead and when to "let" someone else lead may be important (just as, say, delegating is), but I don't think it settles for a different definition of leadership. Knowing when to lead or not has always been considered a good criteria. > Nothing < anecdotes < more anecdotes < data? Well, I'm apprehensive about writing about an odd interview it because I don't want people to think ill of Google merely because I had what might be an uncommon interview process.
- brandall10 13y ago
  How is that a different definition? It seems quite simply they're saying leadership is more about actions that titles. I for one happen to agree strongly with that attitude. The same could be said for any organization which trends toward a flat structure with little in the way of middle management (ie. Valve).

scotth 13y ago

I would love to hear the story.

riggins 13y ago
you had me at 'the strangest interview I ever had'
simonsarris 13y ago
Sorry! I dozed off. PLEASE remember that my anecdote may not be indicative of Google's typical recruiting and I am especially not passing judgement about anything they do (except maybe recruit). I like Google and it's probably a great place to work. Here's what happened: Back in 2011 a Google recruiter emailed me saying I might be a good fit for a position called: > 'Performance Engineer' for which we're looking for a candidate with a combination of compiler, high performance software design and computer architecture experience. Now I'm not certain how he came to the conclusion I might be a good fit, because I'm a simple JavaScript farmer from a backwards asteroid and the only thing remotely close to that job description in my short life were a few articles about JavaScript Canvas performance that I've written. I relayed that there must be some sort of misunderstanding about my skill-set. He says ah thanks, sorry for the confusion, have you got any friends? Standard recruiter stuff. We part ways. Fast forward to 2013 and I've just spent a year of my life slogging through writing a book on HTML5. It got published in July and I was busy resting on newly-built laurels when another Google recruiter contacts me, and I entertain. Now the timing is not particularly weird but this recruiter contacts me a week before a conference I was invited to. You see, one month before the recruiter email I got an invitation to a conference (EdgeConf), which happened to be invite only, even for the audience members, and which was to take place at Google HQ. This is puzzling if only because I'm still a relative nobody, save for perhaps the just-published book, and I couldn't fathom who might invite me to such a thing, but I figured it was someone in Google. The recruiter email a week before the event made this theory much more plausible, so I figured there may be some hint of who invited me awaiting at the conference. Alas, during the talks and the after-party nobody approached me or mentioned who invited me. I did meet the ever-recognizable Paul Irish for a second - we exchanged a handshake and I swooned (who wouldn't?), but no more. The puzzle remained. But how could it be an invite from anyone other than someone in Google? I don't know anyone. I'm from New Hampshire. I have very little in the way of programmer friends. That's a big part of why I love HN so much, it makes me feel like I'm part of a programmer community that I don't get to have offline. After the conference I talked to the recruiter on the phone, twice, where I relayed that no I was not interested in leaving New Hampshire, I like my slow life among the moose and other friends I have. Well that leaves Cambridge, he says, I'm not sure what we do there, he says, I'll get back to you. Cue dial tone. I guess that meant remote is out of the question, but that's not hard to imagine. On the second call, he talks to me about Cambridge and what they do there, but he was oddly uneasy talking about it, like he knew something I didn't (he certainly must). He made it sound like there was little (web?) developer presence there, and he wasn't totally certain what the projects were, but, and this is the part that really blew my mind, it shouldn't matter. He didn't literally say those words, but he heavily implied them by telling me that I would not know what kind of a spot I would be interviewing for. Not until after I'd been accepted, at any rate. There was no "You'll work on fixing Google Finance, which can't be hard since we haven't changed it in 6 years and it still uses Flash." There was almost no discussion of what products I might work on, and it was pointless to have, because I'd be interviewing to be a developer, and I'd be placed afterwards. So I could interview, but what I'd be doing was really up for grabs, and I wouldn't be doing the grabbing, and my options-that-were-apparently-not-mine-to-make were pigeonholed because of location. It sounded like teams only have people on-site, at least It was implied I couldn't work for a team based in Mountain View if my butt sat in Cambridge. So I asked if I could be sure of the position and team that I'd be working for before I interviewed properly, and he said no. At this point I had to cut things short. I don't understand the concept of interviewing not for a job but for a slot in a pool of talent to be assigned only after I am accepted. That sounds like an insurmountable amount of work to find out if a job is something I'd want to do or not. What if I don't like the app? Or the team? It seems like a very stressful way to begin at a company. So there you have it. That's everything I remember at the moment. To this day I never found out who invited me to that conference. I'm sure I'm remembering some of the details wrong. For instance, cell phones do not have dial tones to cue. But you get the idea.